RECENT IMPORTANT BANKRUPTCY
DECISIONS.

RECEIVERS VACATING RECEIVERSHIP.

A receivership created by the referee in bankruptcy, without notice to a receiver appointed by the State court and other parties interested, should be vacated, where it does not appear that the assets are in serious danger or that the State receiver is not as competent as the receiver in bankruptcy.. Ingram v. Ingram Dart Lighterage Co., 34 Am. B. R. 622.

APPEAL METHODS OF REVIEW EXCLUSIVEWHEN ORDER ALLOWING CLAIM MAY BE CONSIDERED ON PETITION TO REVISE ORDER CONFIRMING SALE OF HOMESTEAD. Each method of procedure for review of orders in bankruptcy is exclusive of the other.

An order allowing a claim, standing alone, is not reviewable on a petition to revise, but where it appears that this is the only claim of any amount against the estate and was the cause of the bankruptcy proceedings, the court may, in reviewing an order confirming a sale of the homestead, review the order allowing the claim as involved in the order of sale. Matter of Pindel, 34 Am. B. R. 600.

ASSETS WHAT PROPERTY VESTS IN TRUSTEE-CLAIM AGAINST DEBTOR BECOMING VALUABLE AFTER CLOSING ESTATE.

Where a bankrupt duly scheduled as an asset claim against a debtor and the latter's assignee, and it

appeared that the debtor owned an interest in an insurance policy on the life of a third party, which was of little cash value, and on which the premiums were paid by others than the bankrupt, and the trustee did not abandon the claim, upon the death of the insured after the closing of the bankrupt's estate, the dividend on such claim resulting from the proceeds of the insurance policy belongs to the estate and is not afteracquired property. Matter of Lighthall, 34 Am. B. R. 594.

PARTNERSHIP-DISSOLUTION FOR PURPOSE OF PERMITTING PARTNER TO CLAIM EX

EMPTIONS.

A dissolution of a partnership, with the "sole purpose and object of placing the bankrupt partner * * * in a position to claim his individual exemptions" from the firm property, is fraudulent and ineffectve, as against creditors of the partnership, to pass ownership of the firm property to the bankrupt. Matter of Abrams, 34 Am. B. R. 552.

TRUSTEE-REMOVAL BY REFEREE-APPROVAL BY JUDGE.

An order of a referee in bankruptcy removing a trustee, which has not been affirmed by a judge who, under General Order No. 13, has sole power of removal, is void, and another provision of the order appointing a new trustee, and a subsequent order directing the old trustee to turn over assets must also fall as having no legal foundation. Matter of Berree & Wolf, 34 Am. B. R. 549.

CURRENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.

THE SUPREME COURT.

No. 4397. A. J. Miller et al. v. Oklahoma State Bank of Altus et al. Error from the District Court of Jackson county. Reversed and Remanded. Opinion by Brown, J.

1. It is error for the court to peremptorily instruct a verdict in favor of plaintiff for a specific sum in a case tried by jury where the evidence is conflicting, and upon which the jury might reasonably find against the defendant a less sum than that instructed by the court to be found for the plaintiff.

2. Sec. 1005, Rev. Laws, 1910, relative to interest which may be charged or collected in this State, includes two conditions : (1) Where a greater rate of interest than ten per cent per annum is charged, reserved or is agreed to be paid for the loan of money, but is not paid; (2) Where such interest is charged and paid.

3. In the case first cited where suit is brought on the note which includes illegal interest charged or agreed to be paid, the maker of the note may, in his answer, set up the unlawful charge or agreement to pay illegal interest, and the plaintiff will not be allowed to recover judgment for any sum, other than the note less double the amount of the interest charged or agreed to be paid, which the law declares forfeited.

4. Where in answer to a petition the defendant makes allegations proper in the answer, which alleges facts upon which affirmative relief may be based, and such affirmative relief is prayed for by such answer, the same will, in the absence of an objection thereto,

be treated as a cross petition, regardless of what name the pleader may apply to it.

5. Where the usurious interest has been paid on a note, for extentions after maturity, in a suit to recover on the note against the maker who paid such interest, he cannot set-off the note sued upon by an amount equal to double the interest so paid by him, his remedy to recover such penalty is by a separate and independent action against the party to whom the usurious interest was paid.

6. So long as this court has jurisdiction over its judgments and its attention is called to an erroneous order or decision, it will correct such error.

SUPREME COURT COMMISSION.

Division No. One.

No. 4498. Homer W. Hurley v. William J. Anicker. Error from Superior Court of Muskogee county. Reversed with Directions. Opinion by Brewer C.

1. A party who has contracted to buy land and has paid money, or done an act in part performance of the agreement, and then stops short and refuses to proceed to its ultimate conclusion, the other party being ready and willing to proceed and fulfill all his stipulations according to the contract, will not be permitted to recover back what he has paid, or for what he has done.

(a) But, where a party has made a payment under a contract to buy land, and has failed to make further payments according to the contract and the contract has been mutually rescinded, such purchaser may recover the money so paid in part performance. (b) And in such last mentioned case, if the purchaser is responsible for the breach and failure to

make the other payments, the other party, in a suit to recover back from him the payment he has received may recoup any actual damages he may have suffered because of the purchaser's failure to fully perform.

No. 4695. The Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. T. M. Dye. Error from the County Court of Atoka county. Opinion by Brewer C. Reversed.

The defendant in error sued the railway company for negligently killing a heifer yearling. Upon an examination of the evidence, it is held: That there is a total failure to establish any negligence upon the part of the railway, and therefore there is nothing upon which the verdict can stand.

No. 4249. J. L. Burk v. Hobart Mill and Elevator Co. Error from the District Court of Kiowa county. Opinion by Brewer, C. Affirmed.

1. Evidence examined and held sufficient to support a verdict for defendant company.

2. In a suit for personal injuries, growing out of any attempt to clean and put oil into an oil cup while the machinery was in motion, and where the machinery is of a complicated nature and not easily understood, evidence of an expert, explaining the operation of the machinery, and how the same could have been safely oiled, is admissible.

3. It is not error to allow the defendant, a manufacturing concern, subject to inspection by the State. Factory Inspector, to prove the fact that the appliances alleged to have caused plaintiff's injury, had been officially inspected; such evidence is not, in any sense, conclusive; not does it acquit the defendant of the charge of negligence, but it is a circumstance, which, with all the other circumstances and evidence, may be considered by the jury.